(PS) Nelson-Rogers v. JP Morgan Chase Bank

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/17/2022 DENYING #17 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice and VACATING the 12/21/2022 Hearing. Defendant may renew its motion upon resolution of the TRO appeal and plaintiff's response to the OSC. (Coll, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARY ALICE NELSON ROGERS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:22–cv–1799–DAD–CKD PS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
(ECF No. 17)

v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK,

15

Defendant.

16
On October 11, 2022, plaintiff, Mary Alice Nelson Rogers, filed this action seeking to

17
18
19
20

quiet title to her former residence against defendant, JP Morgan Chase Bank. (See ECF No. 1.)
I.

Factual and Procedural History
Plaintiff is a serial litigant who has filed three prior actions arising from foreclosure on her

21

now-former residential mortgage. See 2:21-cv-02151-JAM-KJN; 2:21-cv-1809-JAM-AC; 2:21-

22

cv-1908-JAM-KJN. In October 2021, plaintiff filed three lawsuits in an attempt to remedy the

23

foreclosure; these lawsuits were all dismissed with prejudice. See 2:21-cv-02151-JAM-KJN

24

(dismissing claim to quiet title because plaintiff did not pay her mortgage prevents her from

25

stating a claim to quiet title against JP Morgan Chase); 2:21-cv-1809-JAM-AC; (dismissing for

26

failure to state a claim); and (2:21-cv-1908-JAM-KJN) (dismissing the case on res judicata

27

principles and denying leave to amend).

28

On October 27, 2022, plaintiff filed an emergency request for a temporary restraining
1

1

order (TRO) seeking to enjoin defendant from executing an unlawful detainer action. (ECF No. 6

2

at 1.)

3

On November 3, 2022, the court issued an amended order to show cause (OSC) denying

4

plaintiff's TRO and ordering plaintiff to show cause by November 17, 2022 why this action

5

should not be dismissed and why plaintiff should not be deemed a vexatious litigant. (ECF No.

6

11.) On November 7, 2022, plaintiff appealed the court’s TRO determination. (ECF No. 14,

7

Notice of Appeal.) To date, plaintiff has not responded to the OSC issued by the court on

8

November 3, 2022. Further, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet issued a decision on

9

plaintiff’s TRO appeal.

10

On November 14, 2022, defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on the issues addressed

11

by the court in its order to show cause (res judicata, failure to state a claim, and whether a

12

vexatious litigant order should be issued). (Id.) (See ECF No. 17.) Defendant scheduled a hearing

13

on the motion for December 21, 2022. (See ECF No. 17.)

14

II.

15

Discussion
At this time, and without addressing the merits of defendant’s motion, the court denies

16

defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. “A district court has inherent power to control

17

the disposition of the causes on its docket in a manner which will promote economy of time and

18

effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Langley v. Guiding Hands Sch., Inc., No.

19

220CV00635TLNKJN, 2022 WL 605358, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2022), citing CMAX, Inc. v.

20

Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962).

21

The issues set forth in defendant’s motion are nearly identical to the issues set forth in the

22

court’s order to show cause (OSC). In addition, the court is currently awaiting plaintiff’s

23

response to the order to show cause issued on November 3, 2022, as well as the Ninth Circuit

24

court of appeals’ determination on plaintiff’s TRO appeal. Therefore, the court dismisses

25

defendant’s motion to dismiss, without prejudice, in the interest of judicial economy.

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
2

1

ORDER

2

Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice and the

3

December 21, 2022 hearing is VACATED. Defendant may renew its motion upon resolution of

4

the TRO appeal and plaintiff’s response to the OSC.

5

Dated: November 17, 2022
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9

21, nels.1799

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3